Seòmar agus comataidhean

I know that we are short of time, but I think that Joanne Smith wants to come in.

What does the analysis point to or indicate? Even though, as you said, it is not very detailed, has the force come to any conclusions on that analysis?

Over time, have you noticed a marked increase in those absences?

I apologise—I know that it is a difficult question in a very sensitive area. With regard to the instances that have been described, I take the opportunity to pass on my condolences to all the witnesses, who have obviously experienced the loss of friends and colleagues in the service.

Convener, I was nearly finished, but that last answer leads me to another question, because that is a really good point. I imagine that you and your officers regularly deal with what the rest of us would consider really traumatic experiences. Has there been an increase in those really traumatic experiences? We have heard about the increase in contact from members of the public in relation to mental health issues, and I think that we are going to hear later about some quite disturbing increases in issues that affect children. Is that also on the increase?

Thank you for that. There are plenty of issues there for the committee and the Government to consider.

Good morning, panel. First, I must apologise, as I have moved into a new room in my office and the light seems to come and go. It is completely outwith my control. If, when I ask questions, I go into shadow, that is what is happening.

I thank the panellists for all their answers so far in what has been a very informative first session on the bill. There are two areas that I want to ask about. I know that you have touched on this a wee bit already, but are you able to expand on your views on the three-month reflection period proposed in the bill for an applicant to confirm whether they wish to proceed with the gender recognition certificate? I have already heard indications of some of your views, but the previous discussion was more about the period before the application. The views on that were given in quite strong terms, but can you talk about the proposed three-month reflection period?

Convener, as I am remote and you are there in person, I am happy for you to decide on the order in which folk respond.

I thank the panel for those thorough and detailed answers.

On the requirement in the bill for the person who applies for a GRC to be “ordinarily resident in Scotland”, some concerns have been raised that that might lead to trans people from other parts of the UK travelling to Scotland to apply. Is there any merit in those arguments? Do you think that the committee needs to consider that point when scrutinising the bill?

I am happy with any order of response, convener.

No, thanks.

It is a great pleasure to speak on Richard Leonard’s amendment. I think that there are two broad issues here—the bill itself, and the support for compensation. It is important at least to me but, I am sure, to my colleagues as well, given the evidence that we have heard, that we do not conflate those two issues at this point.

I will explain what I mean by that. I want to leave the people in the public gallery and others who are watching our meeting in absolutely no doubt that I—and I believe that I also speak for many of my colleagues, although they are obviously free to speak for themselves—fully support the view that the miners should be compensated for the wrongs that they endured. I met a group of miners at Moodiesburn last Wednesday night, and it was harrowing to hear what they and their families experienced after they lost their jobs and did not have financial incomes for a long time. I do not think that anybody with a conscience would not support those people being compensated. However, that is not the issue here.

I know that Richard Leonard is not a member of the committee, but the committee looked at the evidence on compensation a lot. It came up in almost every evidence session on the bill. I see the convener nodding. We all asked questions about it and tried to see how it might work, and we came to the conclusion, as people will have seen in our report, that the bill is not the place to do it. There are a number of risks attached to it, one of which is that it could delay the bill for a significant time. Compensation is not the main purpose of the bill, and it would bring about a whole new legislative-type framework. We are in a space just now where we are talking about the pardon.

I say to the cabinet secretary, who will respond to Richard Leonard, that we need to look at what we can do to make compensation happen, whether that is via the UK Government or via something that the Scottish Government can do after the passage of the bill. What campaigns and processes can we be involved in in that regard? Would the cabinet secretary agree to meet me to discuss how the issue might be moved forward?

The fact that we are debating amendment 16 but are not going to get to vote on it today should demonstrate to anybody watching how complicated the issue is. My colleague Richard Leonard has lodged an amendment at stage 2. The Presiding Officer has considered the amendment and deemed that it is not appropriate to take it forward at this stage, because the financial aspects of the issue have not been considered in a financial resolution. That, in itself, should demonstrate that the committee has wrangled with the issue.

I want to be clear: there are two separate issues here. There is the bill, which is about pardoning miners for the wrongs that they endured, and there is the compensation issue. I do not want it to seem that, because we are not voting on the amendment today, I and other members do not support compensation. I would like to explore with the cabinet secretary how we might go about achieving the aims of the amendment.